Rajasthan High Court Quashes Prosecution Sanction, Citing Lack of Independent Application of Mind

Jaipur: In a significant ruling concerning the prosecution of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Rajasthan High Court has set aside a sanction order, emphasizing that the sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind and not merely adopt the draft provided by the investigating agency.

A bench of the High Court, hearing a Special Appeal, overturned a Single Judge's decision that had affirmed the prosecution sanction granted by the Collector, Banswara, against the appellant.

The case stemmed from a sanction for prosecution issued by the Collector on January 28, 2015. This order was challenged before a Single Judge of the High Court, who upheld it. The appellant then preferred a Special Appeal before the Division Bench.

Core of the Dispute: Application of Independent Mind

The central argument raised by the appellant was that the sanctioning authority (the Collector) failed to apply his independent mind while granting the sanction. The appellant contended that the sanction order dated January 28, 2015, was a verbatim copy of the draft prosecution submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), indicating a mechanical approval rather than a conscious decision.

Learned counsel for the appellant cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat , State of Karnataka vs. Ameer Jan , and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta , along with previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, to support the principle that application of independent mind by the sanctioning authority is mandatory.

Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General, representing the State, argued that the Single Judge correctly observed that the order was not a verbatim copy and that the application of mind was evident. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ashok Kumar Agarwal , which was also cited by the Single Judge.

Court's Analysis: Sanction is a ' Solemn and Sacrosanct Act'

The High Court underscored the critical nature of prosecution sanction. Citing Ashok Kumar Agarwal , the Court reiterated that sanction is not a mere formality but a "solemn and sacrosanct act" that protects government servants against frivolous prosecution.

The bench observed that the grant of sanction is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (and similar provisions under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences). Its object is to discourage fraudulent, doubtful, frivolous, and impolitic prosecutions and protect innocent public servants from harassment, while not shielding the corrupt.

The Court emphasized that the sanctioning authority must carefully peruse the entire relevant record, conduct a "complete and conscious scrutiny," and independently apply its mind to determine if a prima facie case exists. This process involves reviewing documents like FIR, investigation report, witness statements, and proposed charge sheet.

Verbatim Copying Found

Crucially, the High Court performed a bare perusal of both the draft prosecution document submitted by the ACB and the final order granting sanction by the Collector. The Court unequivocally found that the order granting prosecution sanction was a "verbatim repetition" of the draft furnished by the ACB.

The Court referenced its previous judgments, particularly Manish Mathur vs. State of Rajasthan , where it was held that the competent authority must apply its own mind and cannot adopt the draft "ipse dixit." The High Court in Manish Mathur had stated that the ACB could provide facts but could not "instruct for grant of prosecution sanction under a proposed and drafted document." Such adoption of a draft order without independent consideration was held to depict non-application of mind and abdication of powers.

Decision and Implications

Applying the ratio of these precedents, the High Court held that the adoption of the proposed draft document for sanction, as furnished by the ACB, cannot be upheld and is therefore illegal.

Consequently, the Special Appeal was allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated May 24, 2023, was set aside, and the original order granting prosecution sanction by the Collector, Banswara, dated January 28, 2015, was also quashed and set aside.

However, the Court granted liberty to the sanctioning/competent authority to reconsider the entire matter for granting sanction to prosecute the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in accordance with the law. This allows the authority to issue a fresh sanction order after properly applying its mind to the evidence and circumstances, if deemed necessary.

The ruling reinforces the principle that the power to grant prosecution sanction is a statutory duty requiring a conscious and independent exercise of discretion by the competent authority, serving as a vital safeguard for public servants against unwarranted legal proceedings.